Comments on: Artist assaults videographer out of fear he would steal her art with his camera

By: Jon Quimbly

Jon Quimbly — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:06:48 +0000

@Kylie is right. A friend o’mine made a living for over a decade photographing fine art in NYC for galleries and museums. It was almost always on-site work.

His standard gear included 4×5 and 8×10 cameras with expensive lenses, battery powered fixed-color temperature lighting, and ladders. And lots and lots of sheet film.

Reproducing art is not the thing of casual photography, definitely not camcorders, or even nice DSLRs. Lens distortion alone will scotch reproduction.

The most an artist has to fear is that someone will “steal” their idea, in my opinion, and well that’s a risk you take exhibiting your work in public.

By: Kylie

Kylie — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:25 +0000

As both a photographer and a visual artist, I understand where both sides are coming from. To the average visual artist, what you are doing when you take photographs of their art is potentially stealing their work. And considering how hard the average visual artist has to work to make a living, well, I can understand them being upset. That being said:

Charles is absolutely right. If you are set up in a show that is set up in a public place (such as in a park, on a public sidewalk, etc), you not only cannot prohibit photography, it would be impossible to prevent photography if it *was* prohibited. And visual artists need to understand that. There are plenty of galleries that prohibit photography, and there are plenty of art shows set up indoors on private property where photography is prohibited.

And for the record, I don’t agree with the attitude of the average visual artist concerning photography of my artwork, largely because I know (first hand) how difficult it is to get a photo good enough to make decent prints!

By: Charles U. Farley

Charles U. Farley — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:37:55 +0000

@Browne

The artist may not appreciate it, but if they are in a public place such as this outside art festival there is not much they can do. If the artist needs to control access to their art that closely it should be displayed only at a privately owned gallery where they have the right to prohibit photography. Again, there is no such right in a public location.

By: browne

browne — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:28:39 +0000

Visual artists really don’t appreciate people filming or photographing their art. I’m amazed at the people who don’t know this. People can make prints out of good pictures and I know to writers and journalist this doesn’t seem like anything, but before art became a party thing this was kind of a known thing by people who covered art. If you notice most visual artists unless they are EXTREMELY success don’t even have websites and if they do they don’t have their art work on it. It’s a visual arts thing.

In many museums and galleries there are signs that say “no photography” this is why.

By: KDP

KDP — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:05:33 +0000

Don’t point the camera at the artist. You will steal her soul!

By: Rob Molecule

Rob Molecule — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:14:15 +0000

I videotape live bands and post videos on youtube. Mostly these are small bands that are just thankful to have a video recorded. But occasionally I have run into people who don’t want to be recorded, or don’t want it put online. As a courtesy, I always ask touring bands if I can record them first, or at least ask if I can put it online, if I am unable to ask them before recording. A few have said no, and I go along with those wishes. I probably can legally upload them anyway, but I just don’t know why anyone would care. Generally, I only put up a few songs.